HomeMy WebLinkAbout9B - Fences on Corner Lots
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
FEBRUARY 3, 2003
9B
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
DON RYE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING
ORDINANCE SECTION 1101.504 PERTAINING TO FENCES ON CORNER
LOTS ADJACENT TO COLLECTOR STREETS (Case File #02-106)
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
Historv: The purpose of this zoning ordinance amendment is to permit fences
greater than 4 feet in height and 50 percent opacity in the front yard setback
along the side street of corner lots that abut collector streets. This
amendment was initiated by direction of the City Council. This item has been
placed on the February 3rt! agenda at the request of Mr. Tim House.
Mr. House's property is located at the corner of Carriage Hills Parkway NE
and Nightingale Circle NE (14458 Nightingale Circle NE). He would like to
install a fence 6 feet in height along Carriage Hills Parkway (which is
considered a front yard and a side yard abutting a street). The zoning
ordinance limits the height of fences within the required front yard setback to 4
feet and 50 percent in opacity.
On November 4, 2002, the City Council reviewed the subject zoning ordinance
amendment and tabled the item to direct staff to schedule it for a City Council
work session to clarify yard requirements and the implications of the
amendment. The City Council discussed the implications of the existing and
proposed ordinance at a work session held on November 18, 2002. At this
meeting the Council directed staff to revise the amendment to include
language requiring the fence to be located behind the principal structure along
the front lot line, and to be outside the 50 foot sight triangle on corner lots with
garages that have direct access to a collector roadway.
The City Council revisited the issue again at a work session on January 6,
2003, at which time staff was directed to include language in the ordinance
requiring a 6 foot solid fence to maintain a minimum one foot setback from a
trail and a minimum 10 foot setback from a collector street when it is placed in
front of the rear corner of the principal structure (or detached accessory
structure) and reiterated that a 6 foot fence should be located outside the 50
foot sight triangle for driveways and streets intersecting with collector streets.
The City Council also supported the requirement that a zoning permit be
obtained prior to the installation of a fence, provided that no fee is charged
1:\02fi1esI02ordamendlzoningI02-106 feneelee report 2.03.doe Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
and a site plan. not necessarily a certificate of survey. is to be submitted with
the application.
The City's interest in regulating fence height and opacity is to protect the
health. safety, and welfare or community aesthetics and traffic visibility.
Property owners desire to install fences to provide a physical barrier and
delineate property lines. The zoning ordinance attempts to balance and
protect both interests.
The existing ordinance permits fences within the required front yard to be a
maximum of 4 feet in height and 50 percent in opacity and 6 feet in height and
100 percent opacity in the required side and rear yards (see Attachment 3).
For properties abutting an arterial street. fences shall not exceed 8 feet in
height along the property line that abuts the arterial street. Fences 6 feet in
height or less can be constructed without a building permit.
Comer lots are not specifically addressed in the fence ordinance. However,
the zoning ordinance requires a front yard setback along each street on a
corner lot, and fences in front yards are limited to 4 feet in height and 50
percent opacity. (Note: Attachment 4 illustrates current standards for fence
height and opacity on two types of corner lots. The dashed lines indicate the
possible location of a fence.) On through lots (or those that front two streets
running parallel), a 6 foot fence can be located in one front yard provided it
does not encroach into the 50 foot sight triangle and is located within that
portion of the lot used as a rear yard.
Staff prepared the following zoning ordinance amendment permitting fences
on corner lots abutting collector streets to be a maximum of 6 feet in height
(see also Attachment 1). Language incorporating the direction provided by the
City Council at the latest work session is underlined.
A fence on a corner lot abutting a collector street shall be subject to the
following conditions:
1. The fence shall not exceed 6 feet in height along the side
street lot line.
2. The front yard shall be determined by the location of the
garage. The direction the garage is facing shall be
considered the front yard.
3. For lots with driveway access on a collector street, the fence
shall not be constructed within a sight triangle described as
beginning from a point at the intersection of the extension of
the existing curb lines of the street or pavement edge and
driveway, and extending 50 feet along the edge of the street
and along the length of the driveway to the garage front.
This defines two sides of the triangle. The third line is a line
connecting the end points of the two sides described above.
4. The side street shall be designated as a collector street in the
Comprehensive Plan.
1:I02filesI02ordamend\zoningI02-106 feneelee report 2.03.doe
Page 2
5. A 6 foot fence shall be located behind the rear corner of the
principal building or detached accessory structure along the
front lot line.
6. A 6 foot fence shall maintain a 10 foot setback in front of the
rear corner of the principal structure or detached accessory
structure.
7. The fence shall maintain a 1 foot setback from a trail or
sidewalk.
Attachment 5 illustrates how the ordinance amendment would impact fence
installation for the traditional comer lot and the comer lot with access on the
collector street.
In conjunction with the fence amendment for corner lots, staff has prepared
the following language that would require a zoning permit for the installation of
a fence not exceeding 6 feet in height. The planning department would issue
the zoning permit. (Note: Fences over 6 feet in height require a building
permit per the Uniform Building Code.)
(7) A zonin!! permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of a fence
not exceedin!! 6 feet in hei!!ht. A site plan showin!! the location of
the fence in relation to the property lines shall be submitted with
the permit application. A buildina permit shall be reauired for a
fence exceedina 6 feet in heiaht.
Current Circumstances: On October 28, 2002, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing on this amendment. Mr. House spoke about the need
for an amendment to allow for the installation of a 6 foot fence on his property
along Carriage Hills Parkway (see Attachment 2).
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendment
by a vote of 3 to 1. The majority of the Commissioners could not support the
amendment because the fence ordinance was recently amended after
extensive research; there has not been an overwhelming amount of requests
to change the existing ordinance; and allowing 6 foot fences along collector
streets could create an aesthetic issue (I.e., a "tunnel effect") and interfere with
public safety. Meeting minutes are included in Attachment 7.
The Issues: The City Council must make the determination whether to
amend the ordinance based on the following criteria:
. There is a public need for the amendment.
The amendment will allow corner lots to have a 6 foot fence along the side
street lot line that abuts a collector street, which will allow more privacy in
the rear yard.
. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of the
Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans
or policies of the City.
1:102filesI02ordamendlzoningI02-1 06 fencelcc report 2.03.doc
Page 3
One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "protect the residential,
business, industrial, and public areas of the community and maintain their
stability." The proposed amendment will protect the aesthetics of the
properties that abut collector streets.
. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State andlor
federal requirements.
This amendment is not inconsistent with any State or Federal regulations.
The City Council may want to consider extending the right to install a 6 foot
fence in the side yard abutting a street on a corner lot to any such lots within
the City, rather than just limiting it to properties abutting collector streets.
Conclusion: Based on the above findings, the staff recommends approval of
the amendment.
Allowing a fence 6 feet in height along the side street of a corner lot abutting a
collector street is in keeping with the height permitted in side and rear yards
on "typical" lots and in the front yard used as a rear yard on through lots.
The side street must be a collector street, which tends to have more traffic
than a local street. (Note: Collector streets by definition have 1 to 2 lanes and
are designed for long trips within the city and have access to and from arterial
streets. For the street classification map see Attachment 6.) The fence must
also be located behind the rear corner of the principal building or a detached
garage so as to lessen the "tunnel" effect of 6 foot fences along collector
streets. Six foot fences in front of the rear corner of the principal structure or
detached garage must be set back 10 feet, and such fences must be at least
one foot from a trail or sidewalk.
The amendment allows a corner lot with a side loading garage or driveway
access on the collector street to have a 6 foot fence provided it is located
outside of the 50 foot sight triangle.
Requiring a zoning permit for the installation of a fence 6 feet in height or less
would ensure that such structures are in compliance with relevant ordinance,
yet not overburden the property owner by requiring a plan review fee and
certificate of survey.
The Planning Commission, however, recommended denial of this amendment
on the basis that solid fences abutting collector streets could create safety and
aesthetics issues.
AL TERNA TIVES:
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt an Ordinance approving the proposed amendment as recommended
by staff.
2. Deny the proposed Ordinance as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction.
1:I02filesI02ordamendlzoningI02-106 fencelcc report 2.03.doc
Page 4
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
A motion and second to adopt a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow 6 foot
fences along the side s et of corner lots abutting collector streets and require
zoni permits th nstallation of fences 6 feet in height or less.
REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed ordinance amendment
2. Letter from Tim House received October 28, 2002
3. Current fence ordinance
4. Site plans illustrating current ordinance
5. Site plans illustrating amendment
6. Street classification map
7. October 28,2002, Planning Commission meeting minutes
1:I02filesI02ordamendlzoningI02-106 teneelee report 2.03.doe
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 03~ 03
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1101.504 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
I. Section 11 01.504 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to add the paragraph as
follows:
~ A fence on a corner lot abutting a collector street shall be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The fence shall not exceed 6 feet in height along the side street lot line.
2. The front yard shall be determined by the location of the garage. The
direction the garage is facing shall be considered the front yard.
3. For lots with driveway access on a collector street, the fence shall not be
constructed within a sight triangle described as beginning from a point at the
intersection of the extension of the existing curb lines of the street or
pavement edge and driveway, and extending 50 feet along the edge of the
street and along the length of the driveway to the garage front. This defines
two sides of the triangle. The third line is a line connecting the end points of
the two sides described above.
4. The side street shall be designated as a collector street in the comprehensive
plan.
5. A 6 foot fence shall be located behind the rear corner of the principal
building or detached accessory structure along the front lot line abutting the
collector street.
6. A 6 foot fence shall maintain a 10 foot setback along the collector street in
front of the rear corner of the principal structure or detached accessory
structure.
7. The fence shall maintain a 1 foot setback from a trail or sidewalk.
2. Section 1101.504 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to add the paragraph as
follows:
(7) A zoning permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of a fence not
exceeding 6 feet in height. A site plan showing the location of the fence in
relation to the property lines shall be submitted with the permit application.
A building permit shall be required for a fence exceeding 6 feet in height.
L:\02FILES\02ordamend\zoning\02-106 fence\Fence amendment.doc
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of
,2003.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of
,2003.
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
L:\02FILES\02ordamend\zoning\02~1 06 fence\Fence amendment.doc
l~ 'e i (5 1="0 h1Tra
/e.trb .O~
ATTACHMENT 2
GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PRIOR LAKE
PLANNING COMMISSION. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME
THE TIME TO ADDRESS YOU THIS EVENING.
MY NAME IS TIM HOUSE, MY ADDRESS IS 14458 NIGHTINGALE CIRCLE,
NE, PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372. OUR HOUSE RESIDES ON THE CORNER OF
NIGHTINGALE CIRCLE & CARRIAGE HILLS PARKWAY.
I AM ~ THIS EVENING TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF AN AMENDMENT TO
THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW 6 FOOT PRIVACY
FENCES IN THE SIDE YARD FOR PROPERTIES THAT HAVE
CIRCUMSTANCES SIMILAR TO OURS (LE. ALONG PRIMARY ROADWAYS,
CORNER LOTS, ETe). BY AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE IT WIT..L
ALLOW ME TO INSTALL A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE ON MY PROPERTI'
LINE, WHICH PARALLEL'S CARRIAGE HILLS PARKWAY. I WISH TO
INSTALL 140 FEET OF MAINTENANCE FREE VINYL FENCING.
THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS WHY I WANT TO INSTALL A SIX FOOT
PRIVACY FENCE, THEY INCLUDE:
1. THE IDGH LEVEL OF AUTOMOBIT..E TRAFFIC ON CARRIAGE
HILLS PARKWAY.
2. THE IDGH LEVEL OF PEDESTRIANS USING THE SIDEWALl(,
WHICH IS BETWEEN OUR PROPERTI' LINE AND CARRIAGE
HILLS PARKWAY, FOR WALKING, CYCLING,
ROLLERBLADING, SKATEBOARDING, ETC.
3. RESIDENTS THAT WALK THEm PETS ON THE SIDEWALK
ALLOW THEm ANIMALS TO USE OUR YARD AS A WASTE
AREA.
4. SNOWMOBILES USE OUR YARD AS THEm WINTER PLAY
GROUND, WHICH CAUSES THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR
PLANTS, BUSHES AND SMALL TREES.
5. Al'<1) OF COURSE - PRIVACY
BACK ON AUGUST 19, 2002 I SPOKE TO THE CITI' COTJNCIT.. AT IT PUBLIC
FORUM REGARDING THE CITI"S PRESENT FENCE ORDINANCE. AT
THAT TIME I PRESENTED TO THEM THAT I HAD HAD SEVERAL
CONVERSATIONS OVER THE PAST TWO MONTHS WITH STEVE
HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE CITI'. ACCORDING TO
STEVE, THE PRESENT CITI' FENCE ORDINANCE DOES NOT ALLOW ME
TO INSTALL A SIX FOOT FENCE ON MY PROPERTI' LINE BECAUSE,
ACCORDING TO MR. HORSMAN, MY SIDE YARD IS CLASSIFIED BY THE
CITY FENCE ORDINA.."KE AS MY FRONT YARD.
.
.
IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ME, PRIOR TO TALKING WITH MR. HORSMAN,
THAT MY SIDE YARD, WHICH FRONTS CARRIAGE HILLS PARKWAY,
WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS MY FRONT YARD, WHICH FRONTS THE
CULDESAC OF NIGHTINGALE CIRCLE. WOULD THE AVERAGE TAX
P A YlNG CITIZEN OF PRIOR LAKE UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR SIDE
YARD COULD POSSmLY BE CONSIDERED THEIR FRONT YARD? I WAS
COMPLETELY SURPRISED THAT MY SIDE YARD IS MY FRONT YARD
ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S FENCE ORDINANCE.
DURING THE CITY COUNCil, MEETING, THE COUNCil, BELIEVED A
ZONING ORDINANCE CHA.~GE WAS WORTH DISCUSSION AND
DIRECTED THE STAFF TO INITIATE THE PROCESS THROUGH THE
PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SECOND PART OF THE CITY'S FENCE ORDINANCE PERTAINS TO
THE OBSTRUCTION A FENCE WOULD CAUSE AT AN INTERSECTION.I ON
MY PROPERTY, THE "PROPERTY MARKER" FROM THE BACK OF MY
PROPERTY TO THE FRONT OF MY PROPERTY, WHICH PARALLELS
CARRIAGE HILLS PARKWAY, MEASURES IN ACCESS OF 205 FEET. I
WOULD LIKE TO INSTALL 140 FEET OF FENCING, BEGINNING FROM
THE BACKYARD "PROPERTY MARKER."/WITH MORE THAN 65 FEET
REJ.'\1AINING TO MY FRONT YARD "PROPERTY MARKER," THIS MORE
THAT MEETS THE PROVISION IN TIlE CITY'S FENCE ORDINANCE THAT
STATES:
"NO FENCE, HEDGE OR WALL OR VISUAL OBSTRUCTION OF
ANY KIND SHALL BE PERMITI'ED WHICH IS NOT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION 1101.506 (50 FEET
CLEARVIEW TRIANGLE)."
BY CHANGING THE PRESENT CITY FENCE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW
RESIDENTS, INCLUDING OURSELVES, TO INSTALLSlX FOOT PRIVACY
FENCES ON THEIR PROPERTY LINE, WILL NOT IMPAIR AN ADEQUATE
Sl:JPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY,
UNREASONABLY INCREASE THE CONGESTION IN THE PUBLIC STREETS,
INCREASE THE DANGER OF FIRE, OR ENDANGER PUBLIC SAFETY.
MOREOVER, THE CHAl~GING OF THE CITY'S FENCE ORDINA..~CE, WILL
NOT UNREASONABLY IMPACT _ THE CHARACTER AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UNREASONABLY DIMINISH
OR IMPAIR ESTABLISHED PROPERTY V ALVES IN THE SURROUl''H)ING
AREA, OR IN ANY OTHER WAY IMPAIR THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND
COMFORT OF THE AREA.
'.
.
.
BY CHANGING THE PRESENT FENCE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW US TO
INSTALL A PRIVACY FENCE WILL NOT MERELY SERVE AS A
CONVENIENCE TO MY WIFE AND :r. BUT WE BELIEVE IS NECESSARY TO
ALLEVIATE A DEMONSTRABLE UNDUE LACK OF PRIVACY. I
CERTAINLY WELCOME THE PLANNING COMMISSION OUT TO OUR
PROPERIT, SHOULD THAT BE NECESSARY.
WITH THAT SAID, LADIES AND GENTLEMAN OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, PLEASE CONSIDER TO AMEND THE PRESENT CITY'S
FENCE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW US TO INSTALL A SIX FOOT PRIVACY
FENCE ON OUR PROPERIT LINE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIM:E THIS
EVENlNG.
..
.
ATTACHMENT 3
1101.504Fences. Fences may be permitted in required yards, subject to the following
provisions:
(1) The height of fences and walls permitted in required yards shall be limited.
The height shall be measured from the ground level to the top of the fence
or wall section. Fence posts may extend no more than 8 inches above the
required height limit of a fence. In the case where the fence section has
variable heights, the height of the fence shall be the average height. Fence
heights shall be limited as follows:
~ A fence or wall shall not exceed 6 feet in height if it is located in any
side or rear yard.
~ A fence or wall may be located in a front yard if the fence or wall
does not exceed 4 feet in height and 50 percent opacity. Fences in
the front yard shall be limited to decorative fences, such as picket
fences, split rail fences and decorative iron fences. Chain link fences
are not permitted in the front yard. (amd.Ord. 00-07 - pub. 6/10/00)
~ A fence or wall shall not exceed 8 feet in height if the yard in which it
is placed abuts State Highway 13 or County Roads 21, 42, 82 or 83.
~ A fence or wall exceeding 8 feet in height may be allowed if placed
in any side or rear yard separating a commercial or industrial use
from a residential use, a school, church or other public building.
~ A fence or wall may exceed 6 feet in height in any side or rear yard
when it is installed as part of a bUfferyard, but may not exceed 8 feet
in height.
~ A fence or wall in one front yard of any through lot may be at the
height permitted in a rear yard if it complies with all of the provisions
of subsection 1101.506, is used as a rear yard, and the fenced yard
used as the rear yard does not adjoin a yard used as a front yard.
(2) Where a fence or wall 6 feet in height or less is used as part of an animal
kennel or run, it may not be located in any required side or front yard, and it
shall be located at least 10 feet from any rear lot line.
(3) Temporary snow fences shall be permitted in any yard from November 1st
to April 1 st.
(4) No fence, hedge or wall or visual obstruction of any kind shall be permitted
which is not in compliance with subsection 1101.506.
(5) Any fence or wall over 6 feet in height constructed as a result of this
subsection shall be constructed of a nonmetallic material and shall be 90%
opaque. It shall be considered a structure, shall require a building permit,
and shall meet all Minnesota State Building Code requirements for a
structure.
(6) No fence may be located in any public right of way.
CURRENT FENCE ORDINANCE
ATTACHMENT 4
TRADITIONAL CORNER LOT
i~
~
z
:J
...I
W
~
~
w
w
a:
!;;
...I
C3
o
6' SOLID FENCE
~
- -~, - - - - - - -
4' 50% OPAQUE FENCE
L______-----~
.?
50' SIGHT TRIANGLE
COLLECTOR STREET
-
'~--~~~#c~TRAIL
I
I
I
I
I
I
CORNER LOT W / ACCESS ON COLLECTOR STREET
'1
I
I
~
z
:J
...I
W
~
r
6' SOLID FENCE
I ~
- - -~- - - - - - - - -
4' 50% OPAQUE FENCE
.c ~
.
COLLECTOR STREET
SITE PLANS ILLUSTRATING CURRENT ORDINANCE
,
TRADITIONAL CORNER LOT
- --
- -. - - - ---
C)
z
::i
..J
W
~
i
I
I
I,,-~
i: ~~ 6' SOLID
FENCE
! - - - - - - \- - - - -
I
,I 4' 50% OPAQ E
I FENCE
~'~'~E~B~~ ~~//
~..;-~,,=-~~._-:-, ~-::~ !!!ljr~,.S~""TRAIL --:-=----7~:-:~:_.~~L,,~ .,-~~ "-':~~7J:~:,
/
" SETBACK FROM TRAIL
COLLECTOR STREET
CORNER LOT W / ACCESS ON COLLECTOR STREET
I - '1
I I
I I
I
I
I C)
I Z
::i
J ..J
W
I 3::
I Q
:~ 6' SOLID r
-FENCE
I ~,
I
I -.--..--
I /
50' SIGHT /
I TRIANGLE ;--,
; \ /
I /
\ \ /
/
~'.;;;;...,,,,.~~;,,,,,:g~~~_=TR~!l,_i ~_;;:;;,,~=:~ ~ '~>.---<,,,'..-
...-" .'-'", "'.~'~"'''''
" ",--_~.,'t~~.
~':"':'~...-1:':':::":':':"
/
. / .\- 50'
~.~.'.'.'~.'..I
~
COLLECTOR STREET
~
W
w
a::
~
C/)
..J
5
9
~
w
w
a::
~
C/)
..J
5
9
ATTACHMENT 5
SITE PLANS IllUSTRATING AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT 6
!a-"'\~'V~,,,,,,."f"",'.';'."~."...
a
z
. UJ
, (9
, UJ
..J
I~~~~~I
~",";",~;",,'''''''!.-~'X,,<",'lIi'~;;;;:~'~r~'~=~Ji.
i ~
~ ~
,t
I..
; i I
o
"
m:'ffi ro
~ ill .~
t t '- t:
<(<(.... g <(.... ~"C
- '-$"_ .....0 '- 0 (lJ
ro 0"0 :2.!12 ot) 0 u 0
.9- .Sc .....ro C(lJ 0 .... n::
g~~~-~~22g-c :q
it ~Jj oJi ~<3 <3 ::< rr. z4!!( 0
..,.
..,.
i::'~
~'6
G--'
M
N
~.Jl
~.s
o
o
o
~o
o
o
o
o
c'o
o 0
000<) <:?o~
o '\)0004
.Jl
.
~
r
Ii.
U)
15
:f~
'"
-.;
-"
"-~
E-lS
8.:3
"-
'--
ATTACHMENT 7
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28. 2002
the public's interest to vacate. It was basically their opinion the City would be
causing problems for themselves.
Criego:
. The other issue is that it is not a hardship to add a stall and a half to an existing 2
car garage, whether it is to the front, back or side. A two car garage is sufficient.
If there is a need for additional storage then the property is certainly large enough
to adapt.
Stamson:
. Concurred. That has been the Commission's stand in the past. Denied a third car
garage on more difficult lots.
. In the interest of being fair, the criteria the Commission has consistently used has
not been met.
The Commissioners agreed to deny the request.
MOTION BY ST AMSON, SECOND BY RlNGST AD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02-
019PC DENYING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A
SINGLE F AMIL Y DWELLING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
~ C. Case #02-106 Consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance concerning
the height and opacity of fences on corner lots.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated October 28,2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
The following zoning ordinance amendment is based upon a request from a resident, who
resides on a comer lot abutting Carriage Hills Parkway. The property owner would like
to construct a fence 6 feet in height along Carriage Hills Parkway; however, the current
ordinance only allows a 4 foot fence in front yards.
'.
On September 23,2002, the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of amending
the fence ordinance concerning comer and riparian lots. Overall, the Commission felt as
though the existing ordinance is adequate, and did not recommend changes to the
ordinance. However, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment
to allow comer lots to have a fence six feet in height along a side street.
Whether or not comer lots shall be given the right to have a 6 foot tall fence along a side
street is a policy issue. The current ordinance provisions were generally intended for
aesthetic as well as visibility purposes. Provided the fences are only placed along arterial
,
,
L\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNl 02802.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
and collector roadways, these intentions should be carried through with this proposed
amendment.
The staff has no objections to the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment will
offer visual protection for the "rear yard" of corner lots located on collector roadways.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Did City Council recommend this change or the applicant? Kansier said it was
brought before the City Council by Mr. House in an open forum. The City
Council asked to bring it to the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
Comments from the Public:
Tim House, 14458 Nightingale Circle, explained everything staff presented is what he is
looking for. House read a statement for the record in support of the amendment.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Suggested reopening the discussions the Commission had back in September
when the decision was made not to change the ordinance.
. Not of the mind to change the ordinance at this time.
Ringstad:
. Felt the Commission did not want to do anything at that time until it was opened
at a public meeting, which is occurring tonight.
. Could support the change.
. City Council brought it back for a public hearing. After hearing Mr. House speak,
would be in favor.
'.
Criego:
. Couple of concerns: I) of safety; If this amendment takes place, it could be a case
where stopping at any of the stop signs moving onto a parkway like that could
cause visual problems. That needs to be addressed. 2) Aesthetics of fence and the
type of fence along those parkways are important along with the maintenance of
them.
. Historically the Commission and staff have considered corner lots as two front
yards. Ifthere are 4 foot fences, as the applicant indicated, it seems to be
appropriate on the sides except for one thing - it eliminates his concerns except
for passersby looking into his yard. It would stop the dogs and snowmobiles.
That may have more of a pleasing appearance than a 6 foot 100% privacy fence.
. These issues need to be discussed.
.
L\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\rvlNl 02802.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28,2002
. Understands Mr. House's desires but have to look at safety and the aesthetic
value.
Atwood:
. Part of the Commissioners' discussions in September revolved around a case by
case basis. To change the entire City ordinance for one person is not right.
Criego:
. The issue - Is there one unique situation or is it a City problem? To the best of
the Commissioners knowledge there were no other issues raised to change the
ordinance.
Stamson:
. Strongly opposed to allowing 6 foot privacy fences for any side yard that fronts a
street. The ordinance asks ifthere is a public need for the amendment. The
ordinance now aIlows ample opportunity to put in a fence to stop foot traffic or
plant landscaping to provide privacy.
. After discussing this issue in September, drove around town and observed a
number of people who addressed the problem within the ordinance.
. Lives on a collector street. Apple Valley must have allowed this with privacy
fences which created a tunnel effect with mismatched fences along the street. It is
not aesthetically pleasing. It is wrong to think that doesn't have an effect on the
City as a whole and the neighborhood.
. The fence ordinance was rewritten a few years ago and the Commission went
through this extensively. Several meetings, workshops and polling other cities
were done. At that time, the Commissioners didn't feel there should be a fence
allowed in the front yard.
. Lots of discussion on this issue.
. Strongly against amending this ordinance.
Ringstad:
. Questioned surrounding city surveys. Stamson and Criego responded there many
discussions and the Commissioners felt strongly on this issue.
'.
Atwood:
. Well aware of the mismatched fences in Apple Valley and how unappealing it is.
Criego asked Stamson to summarize:
. The Commissioners and staff extensively researched this issue two years ago in
writing the current ordinance. Very comfortable with the existing ordinance.
. There has not been a rush of calls to City Hall to change. It works well.
. Additionally there is ample opportunity to address all the concerns presented by
dual frontage lots in the current ordinance. Drive around town and see all the
residents who have 4 foot fences with landscaping meeting all the criteria. These
issues can be addressed.
.
.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNI02802.doc 11
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28. 2002
· As a City as a whole, the Commissioners have to maintain the standards that have
been set forth. This one goes against what is to be achieved. What is in place has
worked very well.
. Also, there is a safety issue.
Criego:
. Most corner intersections will have stop signs, if people start putting up privacy
fences there is a probability the view of oncoming cars will be reduced and those
particular streets are traveling 30 to 40 mph. The longer distance to view
oncoming cars is important.
· Agreed with Stamson. As a city-wide ordinance this will affect every property.
· Stamson explained 3 corner lots and vision problems created with privacy fences.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL DENY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, Criego and Atwood, nay by Ringstad. MOTION
CARRIED.
A recess was called at 8:06 pm. The meeting resumed at 8: 14 p.m.
D. Case #02-115 Consider amendments to Sections 1101.1000 (Definitions of
Temporary Uses) and 1101.510 (Allowable Temporary Uses) ofthe Zoning
Ordinance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 28,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to temporary uses within Non-Residential districts. This amendment was
initiated by direction of the City Council.
The proposed amendment has two parts. The first part is an amendment to Section
1101.1000, adding a definition of temporary uses. The second part is an amendment to
Section 1101.510, expanding the types of temporary uses permitted in nonresidential
districts and establishing a procedure for those types of uses.
Staff recommended the amendment as proposed_
Questions from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· What brought up this ordinance change? Kansier said the City was asked to see if
a nursery school facility could be established in a Business Office district for a
temporary use. It is not a permitted use at this time. There is currently
. construction going on in their facility.
L:\02FtLES\02planning comm\02pcminules\tvtNl 02802.doc 12